zabbix_consultar_item

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about permissions, error behavior when the itemid does not exist, or what 'metadados' actually includes. The read-only nature is only inferable from the verb 'Consultar', not stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is front-loaded and economical, but the leading '22.' is unexplained noise that carries no semantic value. Nothing is wasteful beyond that, but nothing is added either.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a read tool with zero annotation coverage and an undocumented parameter, the agent still lacks guidance on obtaining the itemid and on failure modes, leaving the definition only minimally adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate. 'de um item' does establish that itemid identifies the target item, but it gives no format, no source (e.g., obtainable via zabbix_listar_itens), and no distinction from other Zabbix ID types.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Consultar') and resource ('configuração e metadados de um item'), clearly a single-item lookup as opposed to the sibling zabbix_listar_itens. It does not explicitly name the sibling or clarify what distinguishes 'metadata' from the history/trends tools, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this versus zabbix_listar_itens, zabbix_consultar_historico or zabbix_ultimos_valores. The only guidance is implicit in the tool name and the word 'item'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.